campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum talk:The God Truth and Love Party
Which God are we talking about here? The god of the Christians, Hindus, Moslems, Bahais, native Americans, Australians aboriginals, Jews? The non-god of the agnostics? The absence of the atheist? Who decides what god has said? What if people disagree over what he or she has said? Reply to Bosco pertwee "Which God are we talking about here? The god of the Christians, Hindus, Moslems, Bahais, native Americans, Australians aboriginals, Jews? The non-god of the agnostics? The absence of the atheist? Who decides what god has said? What if people disagree over what he or she has said?" The answer to which God/god; yes, that One. We would never try to decide, present or claim to represent what "God has said..." That's how you come to have disagreements. No matter if you believe in God/god or not, you can still believe in working towards heaven on earth or perfect bliss and happiness. You can still believe in unconditional Love. You can still believe in uncompromising Truth. Mabdallah 10:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC) What about the divine? You may avoid a lot of confusion/controversy if you exchanged the term 'God' for the term 'Divine' Also, many many people just do not have a basic understanding of God, or the divine in their lives. It seems that defining and indentifying with the divine is an exquisitely personal process. So, I am just a little confused; are you hoping to unite people around the idea that we all have this struggle? Or are you actually trying to unite people around "God, Truth, and Beauty" which are all fairly dynamic and abstract concepts? --Sanjianjc 22:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry it took sooo long to answer you, for I haven't been able to access the site since last month, for some strange reason. I am trying to unite people "of God" around the common precepts found in the religions; those being love of God and love of people. Also, with the "people of God" group, I am trying to unite them around unequaled Belief. Meaning how perfect can you believe or more importantly, WILL you believe? Will you Believe in heaven on earth? Will you believe in working towards a perfect world? What is perfect you may ask? It is at least something better than the condition of the world now. But it takes Belief; which people of God and religions have. I am trying to unite people who believe in Truth around uncompromising Truth. And I am trying to unite people of Love to unite around unconditional Love. You can be all three or you can just be one. I believe that we all fit into at least one category and if you fit in one you can relate to another or others. Yes, God may be abstract, but there are religious documents to go off of; take the good(abstract also, yes). Truth is not abstract; we are just ignorant about it so much. Love is abstract but we all have a general idea of what Love is and what you do for someone that you Love. God bless. Mabdallah Not convinced... Firstoff, I know at least a few spec ops guys that are going to be perturbed that you adopted their motto. Second, your spiel about money is naive at best. Money is simply an easily divisible, homogeneous, durable, commonly-valued thing that facilitates cooperation among people. Imagine how difficult specialization of labor would be if every cobbler had to trade shoes for groceries, shoes for a house, shoes for clothes, etc... Money aids in increasing the standard of living for everyone. The love of money (a particular type of idolatry), not money itself, is the root of all evil. DickClarkMises 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC) :Why, do these spec ops guys have a trademark? There is so much that can be said about money. The Truth is people are suffering greatly because of not having it or having enough of it. I never mentioned trading anything. Just give it (by way of the government). That's why it takes Love. A child just died of starvation. For all those things that you said money is, when it comes down to it, it is greed in physical form. A system of making the have's and have not's. It started with someone saying "mine" and continues to this day. Once we start saying "ours", there will be no need for it. God bless. Mabdallah ::People suffer because we live in a world of scarce (that is to say, clearly finite) resources. Two people can not both eat the same steak, the same ear of corn, etc. Because we do not live in a world where resources are infinite, property is necessary because it allows people to plan ahead. Communal property is property that no one has a real incentive to add to. The pilgrims on the Mayflower tried to live in a communal property system and they nearly all died as a result. It was only when individuals got to own and dispense the fruits of their labor that the incentive was in place for each individual to work hard, be frugal, and to allocate resources to their best and highest uses. "Love" for your neigbor means treating your neighbor as you would want to be treated. In my religion, Christianity, I am instructed by the scriptures (Proverbs 6:6-9) to work hard to provide myself what I need for the future. I am also instructed not to steal. The very concept of "stealing" presupposes the legitimacy of individual property rights. Ignoring the basic condition of scarcity that afflicts this world will result in shortages of goods and will result in starvation, death, and no shortage of suffering. In order to raise the standard of living (i.e., make everyone better off in terms of earthly means, whether they be composed of cars, houses, medicine, food, etc.), we should work to drive up individual productivity through technological innovation and the instilling of a strong work ethic. No system better encourages people to be responsible and proseperous than capitalism. As I said before, money allows market actors to specialize in their respective areas of expertise and to then turn the application of that expertise into the other goods that they need or want. It is only the individual who is blind to the needs of the poor who would challenge the basic human right to property. Dick Clark 21:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC) People can eat the same piece of steak and same ear of corn, it's called sharing. I don't know how finite materials and resources are but we do find new ways to overcome limitations. How finite can things be when there is massive waste? One person has a billion dollars while another has none. Your example of communal property speaks to me as though you are saying that once you start living every man for themself then that is the only way that the world will prosper. You did realise that while you were typing about "ignoring the basic condition...and no shortage of suffering" that you were speaking about something that is presently taking place within the your valued and validated system of capitalism? We should be working to drive up world productivity in truly being able to live (not survive) and be free. Treating my neighbor as myself means providing them with what they need and ideally with what they want. So, Jesus should have made fishing poles and showed them where the nearest wheat field was? Are you certain that the scripture that you referenced is not speaking of your future in the afterlife? The is no reason to steal when you are provided with it. How about this, a devastating hurricane has wiped out your house and neighborhood. No help has come in days. Should a person not steal food to feed his child? My eyes are open to the poor and suffering all around the globe, in first world countries as well as third world countries, which gives me a firm base to stand on in challenging capitalism. It doesn't encourage people it corners people. When you are cornered, you fight. God bless. --Mabdallah 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC) :Proverbs 6:30-31: Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. By this verse, I see that I am instructed not to despise the thief who steals to satiate his hunger, but he is still a thief who must make recompense for his theft. I believe in voluntary charity, and I have donated lots of my own time and money to various charitable endeavors to alleviate suffering. The key is that the "Lord loveth a cheerful giver." We are never called upon to steal the property of others, no matter what the "good cause" for which we steal is. Besides the fundamental issue of property rights, there is also the very real, pragmatic problem of the socialist calculation problem which was most notably explained by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. Under socialism or communism, there is no mechanism for reliably allocating resources to their highest and best uses. Ultimately, under capitalism, the only way a producer knows the optimal level of production is from feedback in the marketplace vis a vis consumer action. Individuals have their own subjective value scales which they depend on when engaging in market activities. That is, they make choices on purchases based on price information and other product qualities. Without capitalist markets, there is no way for a producer to know how many spools of thread, loaves of bread, etc. are needed within a particular time period, or if the particular menas of producing a particular good is yielding a satisfactory product. The poorest countries are invariably those countries with the least general respect for the rights of private property owners. Respect of the indivdual human is inseperable from respect for his property (since his own body is his property first and foremost). Soli Deo gloria, Dick Clark 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I will move away from the Bible because it is just bringing in a specific religion and that is not what the party seeks to do because even in a specific one i.e. Christianity, there is always the differing of opinion and interpretation. Now, your describing of how capitalism works is sound and reasonable, but for me it is just that, an intelligent description of how it works, but it doesn't convince me to accept it as the best option available. And introducing the work of a third party does nothing for me because 1) I don't know of him or his work and 2) there is someone whom has the exact opposite calculation; somewhere. So we will be stuck with who is correct, instead of, what is the Truth. The Truth is, this world has worked under the dominate system of capitalism for quite some time now. But what is its condition overall? More have's or have not's? More rich or more poor? More healthy or more sick? More happy or more sad? More hope or more despair? More joy or more grief? More lies or more Truth? More Love or more hate? More you or more me? Knowledge of the past and conscious of the present, what can we believe the results will be in the future when we stay on the same course? The world has never worked together as one with each other and for each other. So, how do we know where it would take us? Where can we believe it will take us? As a person of faith, can you believe in a perfect world? Can you believe in a world of unconditional Love? Can you believe in a world of uncompromising Truth? That's exactly what I AM striving to do. Give Him all the glory thru Belief, Love and Truth. God bless. --Mabdallah 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) :"Truth" to me is the opposite of "falsehood." It is totally, demonstrably false to claim that collective ownership of property can yield a higher standard of living than (or as high a standard of living as) capitalism. We currently do not live under capitalism, but rather in a "mixed economy" where the government owns or coordinates industry to varying degrees. Herein lies the problem. But, since you're asking, I would say that capitalism has a)alleviated poverty and b)alleviated the ailments of the diseased. Things like air conditioning, while decried by some as a shameful indulgence of capitalist whims, actually saves lives. Recently, here in the United States, there have been several long-term power outages during which the state-sponsored electricity monopolies showed their inadequacy. During this sad display, scores of people died from heat exhaustion/heat stroke. Property held in common is property that no one has any incentive to preserve, improve, etc. Private property creates incentives for people to create technology that is useful to many, many other people. I know that we live in an imperfect world inhabited by people, and I know that people sometimes act in a loveless manner. Planning a world based on an incorrect model of human behavior will destine millions to starvation, disease, and other horrible deaths. Because I love my fellow man, I recognize such endeavors to be evil, or at least terminally misguided. Dick Clark 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) It is only your opinion that it is a "demonstrably false claim" because you have not experienced it to know the Truth, therefore the knowledge, wisdom and overstanding that it is such. I honestly really don't know how to reply to your statement that we don't live under capitalism. Sure there would be incentive, for one, the government would deem it necessary and set law that work had to be done (maybe like a required term of service) to improve and create. Plus, there will always be people who will want to do this anyway. It is in our nature to create. To me, you would have to be saying that you yourself would be doing the very thing that you say would happen. Otherwise, how could you say it for billions of other people? What is the correct model of human behaviour? What is yours? How much of our current behaviour is a result of conditioning by way of growing up in a world in which the philosophy is "ever man for themselves" and "dog-eat-dog" and "life is about struggle and suffering". How many more millions than the present millions, will be destined to starvation, disease, and other horrible deaths? Because I Love my fellow man and God, I recognize the clear and present evil and have faith in my endeavors to change it. God bless. --Mabdallah 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Properly defined, "Capitalism" is the opposite of "every man for himself." Capitalism is about "the division of labor," in which human beings pursue the gifts with which God has endowed them, depending upon and cooperating with others with different gifts. Capitalism is the opposite of "dog-eat-dog" and "struggle and suffer." Capitalism is a harmony of interests, and voluntary exchange without the intiation of force. Those who defend capitalism (in contrast to those who attack it) define it as the absence of coercion, compulsion, and the initiation of force or threats of violence. See more here. Capitalism has brought life, health, and an end to disease, suffering, and starvation for millions of people. To be opposed to capitalism is to be on the side of violence and against everything that makes people truly human. --Vine&FigTree 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC) :You describe capitalism as being nothing short of a holy gift. Capitalism is a mere form of economic order which postulates that individual freedom ultimately translates in the advancement of economy, and from there, the advancement of society. It is a serious misconception to say that capitalism implies an absence of coercion or violence. There have existed various violent and repressful regimes which embraced capitalism, or imposed it by force (just as there have been equally opressive and violent regimes that embraced communism). Also, it is false to say that capitalism is the opposite of "dog-eat-dog". In reality, the very foundations of the free market contain the idea of fierce competition, in which the strong prevails over the weak. Many could consider it an offense to say that capitalism brings life, giving a economic institution almost divine qualities. Also, capitalism is extremely far from having brought an end to disease, suffering and starvation, which have only been diminished (never erradicated) in a few, privileged countries. Finally, in the light of appalling inequalites existing in some capitalist states, it is folly to say he who opposes capitalism sides with violence. What a naïve and chauvinist view of capitalism. Capitalism is an extremely powerful tool for society, and thus must be treated very carefully, for it may be used to abuse of the underprivileged. --Waldsen 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) The definition may be such, but the Truth is, the world operates as "every man for himself", etc. Under a world of True freedom and ability to live and not just pursue, but be helped by your government in achieving as much as possible and as close as possible, happiness, there would not be any "initiation of force". Of course there is coercion and compulsion, either you work and make money, buy and sell, or you don't eat, don't have a home, don't have clothing, don'y have medical care, don't, don't, don't; because you can't without the money. You do what your boss tells you to do or you are threatened to be fired. Nobody really wants money, they only want the things that money buys and allows them to get the things that they need. As a race of being that is supposed to be more intelligent, capable of thought, love, compassion, and consciousness of self, we should be moving to a world that best shows that. I believe that a world in which everyone one is provided everything that they need and then, because it would be easily feasible, what they want, is such a world or at the least, strives to be such . In a world of free accessability I believe that we would find that we don't actual want that much. We want to live and be happy. An end to "disease, suffering, and starvation for millions of people"? Even the richest person in the world catches and is succeptable to diseases; capitalism isn't stopping cancer, AIDS, West Nile, Mad Cow or even the flu. Many rich people are suffering in one way or another; thus the saying which has been proven over and over again, "Money can't buy you happiness." The world is comprised of billions of people, so you only covered a small fraction. Capitalism has brought death, disease and an ever repeating cycle of suffering and starvation for "millions" of people. "To be opposed to capitalism is to be on the side of violence and against everything that makes people truly human", is nowhere near true. There is a word for what it is you just did, relating two things together (opposition of capitalism and violence) in such a manner of extremism, but I can't think of what it is. And, humans are truly violent. To be opposed to unequaled Belief, unconditional Love and uncompromising Truth is to be on the side of violence, despair, unbelief, lies, hate. quasi love, apathy, self-centeredness, non compassion and against people achieving the full potential of what Truly humans CAN be. Finally, the gifts and blessings that God has bestowed upon us are free to us, thus they should be given to each other in like manner instead of having to pursue them over barriers and pitfalls. God bless.--Mabdallah 23:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)